|
It would be great if everyone could use the best software avaliable and only pay a reasonable fee based on the amount of use.
I average less that an hour a week editing photos. I would like to use Photoshop 7 but I can't affort the $579. Nor can I pay $149 to upgrade every 6 months.
It makes sense for a Design Company to pay $300 a year for the lastest version of a program they someone is going to be using maybe 40 hours a week.
That means the design company spends $300 a year for 2000 hours of use. A bargin at .15 an hour.
Of course to make the same about of money Abode would have to an hourly rate based on yearly cost / average usage per year. Lets say the average user who buys the full version and upgrades ever chance she gets uses the program 600 hours a year. That would come out to a .50 an hour.
I would get to edit photos for $26. The average user would pay $300 same as now. And the Design company would pay $1000 which is nothing compared to the salary of the person sitting at the computer.
Of course notion that pay-per-use will provide the same average value for money as purchased software is rediculous. The reason is simple. At first glance pay per use appears to put consumers in the drivers seat. After all if the consumer is not getting good value for their money they will not use your software. However under examination this argument falls apart.
1) Time spent learning new software often costs more that the software itself. A design company would not be free to use Freehand one day and Photoshop the next based on the rates being offered. Even though a user could switch software without spending hundreds of dollars, he would have to spend time learning the new software and would initally suffer from reduced productivity, both of which cost money.
2)Free upgrades would quickly translate into forced upgrades as companies seek to cut costs by dropping support for older versions. A manditory free upgrade could easily end up cost hundreds of dollars in lost productivity.
3) Pay per use will dramatically reduce competition. A software products bigest competitor isn't rival products, but rather older version of the same program. Pay per use would elliminate this competition raising prices. Many companies still use Windows 95/NT 4 and Office 97 because it continues to adequately meet their needs. Even under Licensing 6.0 companies have the option to pay for XP and use 95 or 98. Under a pay per use scheme companies will likely not be given that choice to use older versions at reduced cost.
4)Right now you choice is to purchase Windows XP or continue using Windows 98. If Microsoft is newest product doesn't offer enough vaule for your money you can chose not to purchase it. What would happen when the choice is between paying Microsofts new fee's or have your OS quit working. Not much of a choice. Ethier pay up or switch to linux imediately. Far from giving you freedom this pay per use will allow huge software companies to micro manage you computer use.
5) When has a company ever offered a pay per use service that was price competative with the purchase alternative. Companies alway use pay per use as an means of giving you less value for your dollar. Its easy to raise prices and seize control of our hardware when it is done a little at a time.
If Microsoft has its way eventually will all be paying our monthy Windows Bill and running our offically sactioned programs on digital-rights-managemed hardware that wouldn't dream of running a program of coping a file without permission from an RIAA Server.
|
|
|
|
|
Good stuff mate. !
However what about the fact that the market will set the demand for the software. So Software makers will create both pricing plans and products that developers want.
Thus instead of creating products that customers purely wany to buy, they will create products that users wish to actually use efficiently.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining.
Said byRoger Wright about me.
|
|
|
|
|
Raskolnikov wrote:
would like to use Photoshop 7 but I can't affort the $579. Nor can I pay $149 to upgrade every 6 months.
can you afford Paint Shop Pro ($99)? can you afford The GIMP (100% free)? there are plenty of alternatives available.
-c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote:
there are plenty of alternatives available.
None which are half as good though. 
FreeBSD is sexy.
Getting closer and closer to actually submit an article...
|
|
|
|
|
a little sense to me  ..its worth breaking someone else's code for the pure joy and satisfication. I dont make my cracks public 
How about ya guys ?
|
|
|
|
|
Cracking is a total waste of time. I used to be interested in this kinda stuff. But now I am employed for $50+ per hour. I recomend that you start working on programming, because its the only thing that actualy pays.
Why waste your brain on something that brings you no profit?
|
|
|
|
|
Ur mistaken buddy.. I just do it for fun. Im employed full time. That has become my hobby 
Not only cracking, it has become pretty easy to get *ANY* application on the internet..just subscribe to some newgroups and get a decent FTP client.... ur on ur way .
To be honest, I have never bought a s/w... but I run XP Prof with all the latest incl. VS.NET Enterprise 
|
|
|
|
|
I am perfectly ok, with using warez if you use it just to gain knowlidge... i know i have good knowlidge in some applications that i would never be able to make money on even less being able to buy. Something else is using it for making money... than it is fair to buy them, for the sake of developers (if you dont like those clogs in marketing,...  )
|
|
|
|
|
I have downloaded pirated software with the intent to evaluate it, and then actually bought a legal copy. I have also downloaded software and discovered that was buggy or did not play nice with my OS.
Let me ask you this how many of you would buy an expesive new car without being allowed to test drive it. What if you were told that once it was off the lot you can't return it.
Furthermore you think that you are actually buying a car, because that would give you rights. Instead its some sort of lease which allows then to post an End User Licence Argeement on the hood of the car.
The EULA says that the manufactuer takes absolutely no resposibility for the quality of the car. It is sold "AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS".
If you get hurt or lose property because the car was badly designed and poorly constructed "YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES" for "LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE".
The manufacturer clearly states that it is not in any way responsible for "merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence"
Nothing about the car is guaranteed to work as advertised or even work at all and if you suffer damages you can't sue even if the manufactuer was clearly negligent. In fact they don't even obligated to try (workmanlike effort)to build a quality product.
Then you notice that the the hood of the car is welded shut and you are told that it is illegal to look under the hood or hire your own mechanic to fix the car.
Wouldn't you be stupid not to test drive your neighbor's car before writing that check.
Happy Driving
|
|
|
|
|
almost every app these days comes with a trial license or demo version.
theft is theft, quit trying to justify it.
-c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917
|
|
|
|
|
GPR:
"To be honest, I have never bought a s/w... but I run XP Prof with all the latest incl. VS.NET Enterprise;P"
Where did you say you lived? Did you know that CodeProject tracks IPs and is also conveniently a large recipient of Microsoft advertizing dollars? You would, if you knew what was best for you, uninstall and destory that pirated Microsoft software right now.
Microsoft Software Piracy Task Force
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy
|
|
|
|
|
I can go to any Metro station and buy any CD with a lastest software for a $2 ( only two bucks ). I live in Russia, I have no piracy software on the computer, because I have a hard work and able to buy. But a many more people ( 95% ) with a $100 - $200 monthly income buy a piracy CDs.
What you think about it? How people with $200 monthly income able to buy Windows XP home for a $199 ?
ps. sorry, my English is not very well...
Pavel Sokolov,
CEZEO software,
LanTalk Network,
http://www.cezeo.com
http://www.lantalk.net
|
|
|
|
|
yeah yeah. it's soooo kewl to take money from other programmers. so very fun.
grow up
-c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't afford to pay for something, stealing it is not the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes piracy is the only way to work with modern technologies, and to be in time. Can somebody show me free, full-featured version of VHDL, Delphi, VC++, Matlab, SPICE ? Piracy is the 'less-evil'.
|
|
|
|
|
So I supposed that everything that you ever create with your warez compilers is free for everyone to use as they see fit without your permission or compensation I guess?
Yeah, didn't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
I think a credit model for software would be good so you could say pay MS 1000$ in advance for 100 builds or 2000$ for 250 builds.
Anything to stop all the hobbyists who are ruining this profession.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I am sick of fighting with Martin, I think I will ignore his posts from here on in, and spend the time working on articles instead.
Christian Graus
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I can see all the articles in this community were written by people in their free time - as a hobby. Are you gonna tell them off for ruining the Technical Book Writing buisiness?
With time we live, with money we spend!
Joel Holdsworth
|
|
|
|
|
Joel Holdsworth wrote:
Are you gonna tell them off for ruining the Technical Book Writing buisiness?
No, its the glory part that I am worried about.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining.
Said byRoger Wright about me.
|
|
|
|
|
You ever read a Microsoft End User licence agreement.
Microsoft takes absolutely no resposibity for their work.
Let me ask you this. If you had a choice would you chose to do business with someone who wanted you to sign a contract agreeing that they are not required to act in good faith, are in no way obligated to put forth a a workmanlike effort, and are allowed to be negligent?
As a professional would you ask a client or an employer to agree to these terms. Would you hide these terms in an obsure legal document while making promises that you know you are not required to even try to keep.
What I would like to see is a disclaimer right on the box "AS-IS, not guaranteed to be fit for use, heck we won't even guarantee that we even made an effort."
I thought the part where microsoft dosen't even guarantee to check the product for viruses before shipping was funny until I read that they actually shiped an infected CD (Korean Version of Visual Studio .NET)
If I spend $15 on a toaster and due to negligent construction it catches fire and damages my property I have the right to sue the manufacturer.
If I pay $300 for Window XP and after 90 days it destroys all everything on my hard drive due to negligece on Microsofts part I can't even get my $300 back.
You actually want to give Microsoft Money upfront when they are not willing to guarantee anything about their product.
I got a better plan. How about instead of paying Microsoft, the money goes into an escrow account and Microsoft can't touch the money until their product actually works as advertised and most of the bugs are fixed. With Windows XP Microsoft would stand a good chance of getting paid, but a lot of people would be due a refund for Windows ME.
|
|
|
|
|
You make some extremly valid points.
IMHO: [ Good Faith is everything in Contracts and paper is just a tool for lawyers to get rich on. ]
However part of The MS EULA problem must also be the US legal system that lets fat people sue fastfood businesses. Soon you'l have to sign a contract to eat a Big Mac.
Yes it would be nice to see a version that was Windows As-Is 2003
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining.
Said byRoger Wright about me.
|
|
|
|
|
You've made several excellent points.
I suspect that, many years ago, people looked at EULA's with a wink and a nod in the belief that they "owned" what they had purchased and it was nobody's business how they used "their" software. This is a traditional view of purchased goods.
However, the ever increasingly constrictive nature of modern EULA's, and the complete lack of legal recourse for users, has guaranteed that EULA's are effectively meaningless to the vast majority of users.
A good example is the M$ EULA for FrontPage where they try to limit what you can publish with FrontPage. There is an excellent article at InfoWorld about this hilarious bit of bullshit:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/10/01/011001opfoster.xml[^]
This is the kind of nonsense that guarantees people's non-compliance with EULA's no matter who developed the software. All software companies get lumped together in the same pool as M$. M$ has been the biggest contributor to EULA apathy, and piracy for that matter, by producing the incredibly buggy Windows 9x/ME operating systems. Who could possibly care about even reading the EULA of such a horrible product?
EULA's will only gain meaning when:
1. Software becomes a traditional product where the user purchases a good the he/she legally owns
2. Software developers provide some form of guarantee for quality/capabilities of their products.
90% of people do what they feel is right regardless of law. It's the legal system that has the responsibility of adjusting to people's behavior, not the other way around. The EULA is no different as a so-called "legal" document.
What we really need is an "End User's Purchasing Agreement". The EUPA would state that the seller agrees to the terms of the EUPA if he/she accepts your money for a software purchase. The EUPA, printed in 2pt. type on a credit card sized piece of paper, could be flashed at the cashier when you buy software.
"If lobsters looked more like puppies, people wouldn't put them in boiling water while they're still alive." - George Carlin
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it would, at least to some extent.
I won't preach here, but my own personal position is that I am against piracy so I dont want to make illegal copies of anything.
Therefor I have a problem when i need to do some graphics editing or any such task.
I don't want or need to buy Photoshop for roughly 7000 SEK ($700). Now, the question is; is Photoshop worth $700? Probably if you use it professionally, but for me, if I could just pay for the times I need it, that would be great!
So what do you guys think? Would renting of software prevent software piracy?
---
-"Minds are like parachutes. They only work when open."
|
|
|
|
|
There are certain ways of renting would definitely prevent piracy. If you rented software over terminal server, there is virtually no way that the software could be pirated. The user simply does not have access to the code. It may still be possible to steal the service to use the program, but not to pirate.
There are other software application servers that are currently being developed that allow remoting of the software to work very similar to Terminal Server and Citrix Metaframe, but they are more efficient, and work a lot better.
If you rented software and released the full executable, I do not think that that will prevent piracy. THe whole issue there is that there will always be someone to crack your executables if they can get their hands on the exe.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
Problem is, the payment granularity will be rather month than milliseconds of execution time...
Don't distrust a friend - report him! [sighist]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
